Number one, you're really doing a wonderful job at showing your true colors. Leave the insults where they belong; and that's not at a Christian forum. Number two, I am an English major so I really don't need your lectures on what a simile and metaphor are. Finally, number three, please stop reffering to "my church" because I look to the Word of God for what I need and not a "church" to tell me what to believe.
Now, as documented in the Scripture, Cain's generations did not survive the flood.
It's impossible to document; you have yet to do it yourself. However it can be documented that "two of every flesh" were taken aboard on the ark.The rest simply speaks for itself when read in proper context.

(2Pillars)
Dear SF,Now, as documented in the Scripture, Cain's generations did not survive the flood. No where in the Scripture come close to your flawed religious stand and you can NOT prove it scripturally. However, as a SIMILE (assuming you know the meaning of the word), it is the WORK of Cain that has survived. Read and Learn....1John 310 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
(SwampFox)
It's impossible to document; you have yet to do it yourself. However it can be documented that "two of every flesh" were taken aboard on the ark.The rest simply speaks for itself when read in proper context.
Then, answer my simple question SF, who among the eight (8) souls saved in the flood were descendant(s) of Cain? Note: 3rd request. As an English major, you should have known that the verse that you have cited ("two of every flesh") is only referring to the animals that need to be included inside the Ark a side from Noah's Family -- in that context, correct? Therefore WHY you seem not to understand the simple English construction that you yourself cited??? Read again the whole context and come back to me if you still do not agree.Genesis 6:17-22 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all FLESH, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. 19 And (in addition to Noah's family mentioned specifically) of every living thing of all FLESH, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.God BlessBtw, I did not mean to offend you therefore please accept my apology. I was just having fun and must have been carried away.

The bible is basically the story of Gods plan on earth for his people it dose not mean that Satan dosent have his plan the eight souls were important to Gods plan.It dosent mean no one else on earth survived the flood as any reasearch into the many flood stories from around the world will tell you God expects us to use some common sense.He is telling us what we need to know about his plan if you understood Gods plan at all you have to keep asking what Satans plan is.

As an English major, you should have known that the verse that you have cited ("two of every flesh") is only referring to the animals that need to be included inside the Ark a side from Noah's Family -- in that context, correct?
Pull out your Strong's for a moment and look up the word flesh. Next, I would advise that you take a pinch of your skin and feel it just a moment; that's what you call flesh. Let me ask you a question here; if God only kept those 8 souls (of Noah's line) as you maintain, then how do we still have so many various races on the face of the Earth?If you're one of those people who either doesn't have a Strong's or doesn't put trust in it, then take a look at the surrounding verses:Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.Now I certainly don't think God was reffering to how the animals had corrupted the Earth. Clearly, we see that "flesh" includes humans and in this case specifically means human. We are of the flesh and there are countless other references to that fact in the Bible. Again, I state, when God said two of every flesh he means what he says.There is no discrepancy in the verses that you provided us with. God recognized that Noah and his family remained true to Him (pure) and so they were spared. Now, it comes to the word "flesh" as I have outlined above.As for your question, I've answered it several times now. Two of the Kenite race, along with the other races of Earth, were taken aboard the ark. Hence the reason why we have the flesh races of the Earth to this very day.

(SwampFox)
Pull out your Strong's for a moment and look up the word flesh. Next, I would advise that you take a pinch of your skin and feel it just a moment; that's what you call flesh.
Dear SF,No one here is argueing that most of the time the word "flesh" refers to human. However, the word "flesh" is also at times used to describe animals flesh, don't you agree?Besides. those "angles" do not have FLESH- where do you get that assumption?That's is why the Bible is crystal clear and very specific in distinguishing how many human flesh or soul were save in the flood.Read and learn... 1Peter 318 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight SOULS were saved by water. (SwampFox)
Let me ask you a question here; if God only kept those 8 souls (of Noah's line) as you maintain, then how do we still have so many various races on the face of the Earth?
The source originated on the 5th Day when the LORD created every living creature that moveth, from the water abundantly. Gen 1:21 This includes Natural Man or Mankind -- describes as prehistoric man by scientists -- but the sons of God by the Lord. Genesis 6 tells us that when they married the daughters of Adam, Great and Mighty men, were the offspring. The source on this Planet was Noah. When Noah arrived, his sons were married, but his grandsons, like Cain, married the Prehistoric people who were here when Noah arrived. The combination of the descendants of the sons of God and Adam's descendants brought Human Intelligence to this Planet of Apes (scientist term). Human Civilization can be traced to Noah's arrival, exactly as God told us more than 3,000 years ago.Then, the Lord scatter all the people abroad upon all the face of the earth and comfound their language.Look and Read... Genesis 116 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the LORD scattered them ABROAD from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them ABROAD upon the face of all the earth.Of course the above analogy is based only on Scripture -- unlike your assumption.God Bless

No one here is argueing that most of the time the word "flesh" refers to human. However, the word "flesh" is also at times used to describe animals flesh, don't you agree?
You seem to be for all intents and purposes. You cannot change the meaning of the word flesh which clearly denotes both humans and animals here. That's pretty much the end of that particular discussion because both sides are clear on the matter.
Read and learn... 1Peter 3 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight SOULS were saved by water.
You just love to do this don't you? Now let's put this passage in perspective. Quite clearly, this passage is talking about much more than being saved in the physical sense. Instead, this would be talking about those spiritually saved as we see in verse 21.1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:Now, let's go back and again look at what's going on. Let's look at verse 19.19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;Prison? This doesn't sound like anything to do with the actual ark now does it?20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.This isn't talking about anyone on the ark! Notice that it simply says while the ark was "preparing" - there's nothing talking about who was actually on the ark. Noah wasn't disobedient - he did what God told him to do. Something very spiritual is going on right here - this is talking about Christ's resurrection! He saved 8 souls of which were destroyed in the great flood that Noah built the ark for. The prison, therefore, is hell. This doesn't have anything to do in the remotest with who was on the ark.Your argument about the Tower of Babel is also off the mark. Notice the specific use of the word "language" and not anything to do with the races or anything else for that matter. God didn't suddenly decide to make everyone of a different race - at least that's not what the Bible says. These races were created on the 6th day and persisted through the flood because of "every flesh." Your attempt at offering up two explanations on the matter speaks for itself. The Bible says differently.

(2Pillars;1099)
Dear SF,No one here is argueing that most of the time the word "flesh" refers to human. However, the word "flesh" is also at times used to describe animals flesh, don't you agree?Besides. those "angles" do not have FLESH- where do you get that assumption?That's is why the Bible is crystal clear and very specific in distinguishing how many human flesh or soul were save in the flood.Read and learn... 1Peter 318 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight SOULS were saved by water.
Dear SF,First of all, I am glad you email me -- promoting this site -- since I crashed my computer a month ago and forgot the address of this domain.Anyway, back to our topic...(SwampFox;1100)
You just love to do this don't you? Now let's put this passage in perspective. Quite clearly, this passage is talking about much more than being saved in the physical sense. Instead, this would be talking about those spiritually saved as we see in verse 21.1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:Now, let's go back and again look at what's going on. Let's look at verse 19.19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;Prison? This doesn't sound like anything to do with the actual ark now does it?20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.This isn't talking about anyone on the ark! Notice that it simply says while the ark was "preparing" - there's nothing talking about who was actually on the ark. Noah wasn't disobedient - he did what God told him to do. Something very spiritual is going on right here - this is talking about Christ's resurrection! He saved 8 souls of which were destroyed in the great flood that Noah built the ark for. The prison, therefore, is hell. This doesn't have anything to do in the remotest with who was on the ark.
I agree that the above cited text also speaks of other "spirits in prison" that were saved retro-active AFTER the flood but had nothing to do with your assumption that there were other living flesh/souls (kenites) saved during that actual time of the flood - a side from Noah and his family.Perhaps, what you missed reading or understand in connection to that cited text is... Jesus went back to the "spirits in prison" AFTER his resurrection to redeem those other dead spirits in prison -- during the first testament -- by virtue of his own sacrifice and blood.Look and Read...Hebrew 914 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?15 And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.I would advise to seriously reconsider your position which I strongly believe to be based only on wild imagination of your church.God Bless

First of all, I am glad you email me -- promoting this site -- since I crashed my computer a month ago and forgot the address of this domain.
First off, welcome back! I'm glad that you got things straightened out. I know how rough those crashes can be when it comes to losing things.
I agree that the above cited text also speaks of other "spirits in prison" that were saved retro-active AFTER the flood but had nothing to do with your assumption that there were other living souls saved during that actual time of the flood - a side from Noah and his family.
Wait just a minute here. My point, right here, is that this verse is clearly not talking about Noah when it says 8 souls were saved. It has everything to do with what I am saying. You're the one trying to say that these 8 souls were Noah and his family2Pillars)
That's is why the Bible is crystal clear and very specific in distinguishing how many human flesh or soul were save in the flood. Read and learn... 1Peter 3 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight SOULS were saved by water.
That passage has nothing to do with Noah besides using him as a reference for the days before Noah; which, we know from scripture were filled with sin.

1Peter 318 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight SOULS were saved by water.
(SwampFox;2102)
That passage has nothing to do with Noah besides using him as a reference for the days before Noah; which, we know from scripture were filled with sin.
Thanks for the warm welcome back SF.Is that right? Let's see if we can count up to 8 living souls -- a side from Noah and his wife, how many sons together with doughters-in-law does Noah have? Here's the hint below...Genesis 713 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;Do you just find it co-incindent that there were only 8 living souls (Noah & his family) went inside the Ark?

Let's do away, just for a moment, with the verse numbers. I think we can agree that these were added at a later date and can get in the way.Now, let's read verses 19 & 20 as sentence as the punctuation dictates:By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight SOULS were saved by water.The Greek here for spirit is #G4151 which can be independently verified through Strong's.pneuma -- pronounced: pnyoo'-mah:from 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit: -- ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind.Sure, Noah had a soul as we all do, but this is clearly talking about the Word being preached to spirits specifically in prison. I surmise from your post before the last that you agree that this is clearly not Noah and his family. Notice the semicolon that continues the thought here. These spirits are characterized as sometimes being disobedient - not quite the explanation of Noah here either:Genesis 7:9These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.Next we have the only direct reference to Noah in the verse which is by name so there's no mistaking that. However it talks about the patience (longsuffering) of God in the days of Noah specifically. Note the phrase "while the ark was preparing" - again we have a timeframe here. These souls took part in the abominations of days of Noah before the flood. We've already established from scriptural reference the character and person of Noah. The context of this puts it all in perspective. These eight souls have nothing to do with Noah and the ark other than they were on earth before the flood.Revelation 21:6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.Revelation 22:1And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.The water of life, my friend, is the only water that can save.There are no coincidences in the Bible, everything down to the numbers have meaning. Why exactly was it only 8 souls saved in the prison? I guess the answer is simply enough those are the only 8 who accepted Christ. However, it is clear that this is not talking about Noah.

HI, I see this post has been going for a time........I thought Id jump in here:SATAN, CAST OUT OF THE THIRD HEAVEN OF COR.12:2THE RULER OF HEAVENS (1&2) AND EARTH, HAVING SPIRITUAL WICKEDNESS IN HIGH PLACES.GENESIS CHAP.18 -19 SHOW ANGELS CAN MATERIALIZE.JUDE 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to*fornication, and........... going after strange flesh,....... are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.FALLEN ANGELS WENT AFTER STRANGE FLESH...COULD THIS BE THE REASON FOR GIANTS?JUDE1: 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great dayTHESE ANGLES ARE NOW CHAINED IN DARKNESS UNTIL JUDGMENT DAY.II PETER 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;You see Angles went after strange flesh.......................God BlessLove123

Hello all,I recently came accross this forum while conducting my own research on this subject and thought you might find the following of interest."above is a photo of the Strand Giant, a 12 foot fossilized being found in Ireland; this photo is the only true evidence that there are indeed giants in the earth, proving there are places inside the Earth with great secrets yet to be revealed to surface humanity"

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/16560_giants.htmlHere is a story that contains info about the city of Aleppo and the graves of giants.
Q: You mentioned a few graves of the giants found by your expedition, did you not? A: Yes, I did. The long search finally resulted in the discovery of a several gigantic graves located near the city of Aleppo in Syria. The graves used to be a sacred place for worshippers. However, some locals told us that radical Muslims destroyed the cemetery a few years ago. They bulldozed the tombstones. We could have started an excavation on the site but we never did. We did not know how the locals would react to our digging in their ground. The locals showed us another grave of a giant. It sits on top of the hill some 20 kilometers away from the destroyed cemetery. The locals call the place a “grave of a 7.5-meter man.” The giant was called “Muhammad Attaul” or Muhammad the Tall One. Legend has it that the giant came down from Yemen. He was a miracle man, he could speak a form of Arabic used by the prophet Muhammad. He was killed and buried on the locale. The treasure diggers vandalized the grave two years ago. They were caught and thrown into jail. Local peasants are now trying to restore the grave. They already placed a few boulders around it and built a stone fence.

Shown below, are references to the article including some photos of the areas as mentioned.Re: Giants: Fact or Fiction?By Scott CorralesFATE :: May 2006continued from page twohttp://www.fatemag.com/issues/2000s/2006-05.html"In the fall of 1962, some strange human remains were found in the vicinity of the Torres del Paine mountain peaks: they were those of a man who had stood between two and a half and three meters tall, and dated to an antiquity of 500 years." Proof that the Patagonian giants were not merely traveler’s tales?Below, are a few recent photos taken from Torres del PaineNotice that the structures and accomodations from these locations are quite 'suitable' for a dwelling for such creatures? even more interesting are the mammoth proportions of the ancient structures carved out of the lanscape within these locations which are scattered throught the world!Torres del Paine john mitt.jpg"Summit of Torres del Paine, Chile"Marja JohnsonUniversity of Colorado at BoulderCIEE Study Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina Torres Del Paine in the cloudshttp://www.joeskitchen.com/chile/photos/su...es_de_paine.jpgA Museum ConspiracyIn a 1995 interview with Alfonso Serra, Catalonian mystery writer Miguel Aracil mentioned that an article of his had caused an uproar among Spain’s intellectual community when he leveled the accusation that some of that country’s museums held in their collections bones that proved the existence of giant humans. The maverick writer had been aided in this effort by a physician, Ana Capella, and a cartographer, Fernando Ledesma.Aracil’s work suggests that the entire region of the "Pyrenées"—the mountain range separating Spain from France—was the home of true giants who may still endure to this day, becoming the source of numerous Bigfoot accounts. A considerable number of giant skeletons, he argues, have been unearthed beside the megalithic dolmen of Oren in the Cerdanya region. They were in the custody of a man in the village of Prullans until they were turned over to the Barcelona Museum of Archaeology, where they vanished altogether or were perhaps even destroyed.Warning !Mountains are not ordinary places.The weather can change very fast, storms are violent, the difference in altitude, even modest, can take people who are not used to physical effort by surprise.Don't forget that it takes a good hour to climb 300 m. There are of course way-marked paths and signs. But despite these some people still get lost...It is impossible to move in the mountains as one would in a town or in a public park ! It's not possible to go any way you like, there are cliffs and dangerous slopes.It is therefore necessary to study a route, to look at a 1/25 000 map, to ask competent people for advice, to pack your bag properly and to be fit..In short, to go well prepared especially if you are taking children along.http://www.parc-pyrenees.com/anglais/cadre...eral_hiking.htmOn expedition in the ancient city of the giants, Sacsahuaman, high in the Andes of Peru. Remarkable archaeological discoveries and the unearthing of startling anomalous finds are presented, along with numerous mind-boggling photographs of unexplained phenomena, in Mysteries of Time and Space.Brad & Sherry Steigerhttp://www.bradandsherry.com/mysteriespast02.htmAdditional Ref: Apocrypha and Pseudeipgrapha of the Old Testament by R. H. Charles, vol. II , Oxford Press http://www.carm.org/lost/enoch.htm

All fascinating information and I think a fair portion of it is quite true. Thank you all for the links.I think one of the biggest things for me is the "intellectual honesty" of the scientific community as a whole. As I research and look up certain things, you start to notice a certain trend of wanting to either cover up or overlook evidence that doesn't fit the current status quo. For example, we have all of this evidence of these giants, but this cannot be explained through our current theory of evolution because these giant beings, for all intents and purposes, would have clearly been superior to the race of humans that we have today. They don't fit anything they can come up with so let's go throw them in the dinosaur bone pile or simply get rid of them. I think this is also where our so-called "missing links" come from as well.

Hello All,I am a new poster here. And this is great subject. One that has spawned much controversy and debate. So I did a study on this myself to find out. I've been studying the Bible for about 25 years. I work for the 4th largest Christian book publisher in the world, so I have access to all sorts of bible study materials including Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldean concordances. So please bear with me, for this is long.One of things I have learned about the Bible is that it is full of "figurative language". I picked up a copy of "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" written by E.W. Bullinger, the great great grandson of Heinrich Bullinger of the Protestant Reformation.Anyway, it explains, that words such as "giants or Nephilim" or "sons of God", are used "figuratively," meaning that they should not be taken at full literal face value, but as "symbolic or metaphoric" language.In the book of Luke, chapter 3, we find the genealogy of Jesus. Luke 3:38 KJV, “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” Here we see that “Adam” was called the “son of God”. If Adam was a son of God, then could it stand to reason that his offspring through Seth are also “sons of God?” Is there a clue to this in Genesis?In the book of Genesis: Genesis 4:26 “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.” When “men began to call upon the name of the Lord," is when mankind began to walk in the Spirit of God.Next. Jesus promised us that if we follow him and walk in his ways: John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” And the Apostle Paul wrote:Romans 8:14 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Therefore, we could conclude that those who are “led by the Spirit of God” are the “sons of God”. Could that be true of Old Testament times as well?Now for further study.Who Were the Nephilim or Giants?Genesis 6:4 (NKJV) "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."Genesis 6:4 (RSV) "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown."Numbers 13:33 "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."Deuteronomy 3:11 "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man."Who were these "giants" or "Nephilim"? Were they the offspring of fallen angels and human women, fallen sons of God? Or were the Sons of Seth the ones who came unto the daughters of Cain and produced those Biblical "giants" of their day? This subject has long been the debate of many Christians and I wish to help clear up some of the controversy. When we read the above verses at first glance, it seems they are talking about huge men of very tall stature or superhuman men. But are they really? Notice in Deuteronomy 3:11 that it was King Og's BED that was nine cubits long, NOT King Og himself. Might the Israelites have used "exaggeration" when they were afraid and didn't want to fight God's battles when they said "and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers."?According to The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1984 ed., the word Nephilim is derived from the word nephiyl pronounced, nef-feel, meaning a bully or tyrant. Yes, a bully or a tyrant....nothing to do with "large, men of great stature".This is the real meaning of the word giant as it was used in the context of Genesis 6:4. The word giant doesn't mean "super-human" or someone of "large stature" at all. It means a tyrant or mighty man, man of reknown. Those men who oppressed and beat their subjects into submission. "Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord," is a good example. He was all powerful in his day. And he ruled with an "iron fist". He was the "giant" of his day. The word "giant" is used in the figurative sense in modern times for "the giants of their industry" and we know that is a "figure of speech" and not to be taken at literal face value. So why would we believe that there was literally a whole race of men around 9 cubits tall? Another Hebrew word for "giant" is gibbor (used in Numbers and Deuteronomy) which means "powerful, warrior, tyrant, champion, chief, valiant man, or mighty man." Again, it does not mean a very large man of tall stature.The word nephiyl is taken from the Hebrew word nephal. Nephal has a variety of meanings: among those are "fallen, abortion (untimely death), to be cast out or cast down, a falling away, fugitive, inferior, to be judged, loss of light (as in the light of wisdom), overthrown, overwhelm, perish, to be smitten."Then WHO fell from the face of God? Were they "angels" or were they Adam's descendants? To determine that, let's begin by examining the word "angel". Were they angels that mated with human women? Or were they the "Sons of Seth" through Jared that mated with Cain's offspring that was forbidden by God?ANGELSIn The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, we find that the word "angel" has many meanings and is even used in the figurative sense. The word angel is translated in both the Hebrew and Greek languages as "messenger", we all know this, but on closer examination, we find the "root" words for angel mean something different.In the Hebrew language, "angel" is malak, pronounced, mal-lawk,: it is from an unused root which means to "despatch as a deputy, a messenger, but ALSO, a priest of God, prophet, or teacher, or king," denoting that it can also be used to describe someone who is "human."In the Greek language, "angel" is the word agellos which is a compound word derived from two other words, agele which means "a driven herd", and ago which means "to lead, bring or drive, bring forth, keep, lead away, be open." Or more commonly understood as a "shepherd".We know that Jesus is referred to as the "Good Shepherd", right? Remember, the Shepherd Kings of ancient Egypt? And we know that figuratively, God's people are known as “the sheep of His pasture,” right? This is figurative language. For we know that we are not "literal" sheep, right?Then we can conclude that that word "angels" is not necessarily referring to extra-terrestrial beings at all in certain passages? Could it be referring to those "ancient shepherds who were leaders over God's people?" In the case of the book of Jude and II Peter, those "angels that sinned and are held in chains" are in fact those "ancient leaders of God's people" who sinned by marrying the daughters of Cain which God strictly forbade as we will examine below. Sons of Seth?Where is there other evidence that it was the "Sons of Seth" who were the "sons of God"?For that, we turn to the book of Jasher and Adam and Eve Book II from the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical texts of the Scriptures. Now I know that these scriptures are controversial and debated. But I also know that the Reformation fathers referred to them. The book of Jasher is referred to in both the book of Joshua and the book of II Samuel in the bible. The Lost Books of Eden were lost texts not considered canonical by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, however, they contain a wealth of information that seems to fill in the missing "holes" in Scripture and they do not in anyway detract from the message of the main canonical books.In the book II of Adam and Eve, Chapter 20, verse 15 we read:15 "Meanwhile the children of Seth, who were on the Holy Mountain, prayed and praised God, in the place of the hosts of angels who had fallen; wherefore God had called them "angels," because He rejoiced over them greatly."Here we have confirmation that God himself called his children or the Sons of Seth, "angels" for he rejoiced over them greatly.Now how did they fall?In Chapter 15 of Adam and Eve, book II, we read that after the death of Enos, Seth's son, Cainan stood at the head of his people in righteousness and innocence. And Cainan warned the people, "Let not one among you go down from this Holy Mountain; and make no fellowship with the children of Cain the murderer." We read on in chapter 16 and find Mahalaleel, son of Cainan standing over the children and warning his son Jared not to go down from the Holy Mountain where they lived to mix with the children of Cain, lest they perish with them.6 "Hear, O my son, hereafter there shall come a great destruction upon this earth on account of them; God will be angry with the world, and will destroy them with waters. (warning of the coming of the Deluge upon the land)7 "But I also know that thy children will not hearken to thee, and that they will go down from this mountain and hold intercourse with the children of Cain, and that they shall perish with them.8 "O my son! teach them, and watch over them, that no guilt attach to thee on their account."In Chapter 17, Jared keeps his father's promise, however, Satan then appears as a beautiful apparition to deceive Jared's children. All except Enoch who constantly kept watch.Satan then entices the children of Cain to make strong drink, musical instruments, and to teach the women how to put on makeup and dress and dance seductively. We read on....16 But after this, they no longer kept His commandment, nor held by the promise He had made to their fathers; but they relaxed from their fasting and praying, and from the counsel of Jared their father. And they kept on gathering together on the top of the mountain, to look upon the children of Cain, from morning until evening, and upon what they did, upon their beautiful dresses and ornaments.17 Then the children of Cain looked up from below, and saw the children of Seth, standing in troops on the top of the mountain; and they called to them to come down to them.Later on:29 Enoch at that time was already grown up, and in his zeal for God, be arose and said, "Hear me, O ye sons of Seth, small and great—when ye transgress the commandment of our fathers, and go down from this holy mountain—ye shall not come up hither again for ever.30 But they rose up against Enoch, and would not hearken to his words, but went down from the Holy Mountain.31 And when they looked at the daughters of Cain, at their beautiful figures, and at their hands and feet dyed with colour, and tattooed in ornaments on their faces, the fire of sin was kindled in them.32 Then Satan made them look most beautiful before the sons of Seth, as he also made the sons of Seth appear of the fairest in the eyes of the daughters of Cain, so that the daughters of Cain lusted after the sons of Seth like ravenous beasts, and the sons of Seth after the daughters of Cain, until they committed abomination with them.33 But after they had thus FALLEN into this defilement, they returned by the way they had come, and tried to ascend the Holy Mountain. But they could not, because the stones of that holy mountain were of fire flashing before them, by reason of which they could not go up again.ACCOUNT IN THE BOOK OF JASHER16 And all the sons of men departed from the ways of the Lord in those days as they multiplied upon the face of the earth with sons and daughters, and they taught one another their evil practices and they continued sinning against the Lord.17 And every man made unto himself a god, and they robbed and plundered every man his neighbor as well as his relative, and they corrupted the earth, and the earth was filled with violence.18 And their JUDGES AND RULERS went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.Here we see another meaning for Sons of God as "judges and rulers".-------------Therefore, I conclude, that the "sons of God" were the sons of Seth who mingled with the daughters of Cain in disobeying God. It was those who originally "walked in the Spirit of God" who "fell" from the face of God and married into the murderous line of Cain whom God forbade their intermarriage.And the "giants" or "Nephilim," their "offspring," were the "mighty warrior men of renown as defined in the Hebrew language.If you are still not convinced, then ask yourself, Why was Noah "righteous in all of his generations"? Could it be that Enoch did not follow his brothers to mingle with the daughters of Cain? Thus preserving the line of "righteous men"?God Bless,Kim

Well all I can tell you is for the Sons of god to be from Seth you have to ingnore parts scripture and sense there are no contradictions in Gods word. Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).there were giants in the World proven not only in scripture but ArcheologyNow if you are going use Jasher and other Apochl. Books how do explain the Book Enoch are you not just picking and choosing works to support your view???http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/I also question some of your word definitions as complete.(see next post)Origin of the Sethite View It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.) Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view. Problems with the Sethite View Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following: 1. The Text Itself Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.") The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5 The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth. If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.) And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support. The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12 The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term. 2. The Daughters of Cain The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?) Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful. 3. The Inferred Lines of Separation The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth. 4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16 The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?) It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.17 If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood? 5. The Unnatural Offspring The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood. Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood. The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.18 Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly. A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)19 6. New Testament Confirmations "In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah. Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus. The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24) These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies. 7. Post-Flood Implications The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan. One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty. 8. Prophetic Implications Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27 We will take up these topics in Part 2, "The Return Of The Nephilim.") In Summary If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record. It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.28 Among those supporting the "angel" view are: G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known. For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final. (And greater dangers than the implications attending these issues await them!) For further exploration of this critical topic, see the following: George Hawkins Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, first published by Hodder and Stoughton in 1875, and presently available by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI, 1975. John Fleming, The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology, Hodges, Foster, and Figgis, Dublin, 1879. Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1976. Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology, Scripture Press, Chicago IL, 1952. Clarence Larkin, Spirit World, Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, Philadelphia PA, 1921.